Roller bearings anyone?

[86GN-862+2]

Wondering if anybody has run or is running roller cam bearings and/or roller crankshaft bearings in an engine build up Buick or not. With billet everything available nowadays, I'm surprised no one has these kits on the market by now or maybe someone does and I just don't know about it. I had always wanted to do this to my 400sbc build using the smaller journal 350 crank. It's been a thought for the past decade but no cash and too many bills; I have not been able to do it. Bobbitt type bearings work great and all but there has got to be a better way. I hear a lot of reasons why roller bearings aren't durable under such demandings applications but I say it's BS. I don't see anybody using bobbitt bearings on high spinning turbines or super heavy machinery in the mining industry for example. I know Timken gave it a go with the SBC but was short lived or maybe still going??!?! I have been able to find any part numbers. Maybe they are available and some elite group uses them to have an advantage over most everybody else. LOL. It would be kool if somer rich car nut was to make this dream a reality.

 

[Nick Micale]

There are roller bearing cams in a few Buick Stage II engines.

It is not practical for doing this in a production Buick V-6 block.

Since you seem to be new to the Buick world, let me inform you the basic design of the 1987 GN turbo engine is over 50 years old, and has been out of production for 25 years.

What is common place in 21st century engines is usually not practical, or WAY too costly to consider in a GN engine.

Since some Buick engine builders have been able to obtain over 6 horsepower per cubic inch of displacement with the turbo V-6, we have come a long way and can still hold our own with the competition using our "old" technology! :biggrin:

 

[86GN-862+2]

Thanks for the info you have shared. I was thinking it would be more feasable on V8 designs being how some of the engines are externally similar in the BOP makes. True it would not be cost effective in the beginning, but what is? It's just a topic that interests me quite so that I may try it some day on my own. I got a 400sbc and a Buick 455 just lying around taking up space. There has to be enough friction reducing possibilities to be worth a try on the old tech engines.

 

[Dabigguy]

In a stock block engine, you would have to take a lot of metal out of the block to install roller cam and crank bearings, which would weaken the block. Plus, how would you get the roller bearings on the crank?

 

[86GN-862+2]

In a stock block engine, you would have to take a lot of metal out of the block to install roller cam and crank bearings, which would weaken the block. Plus, how would you get the roller bearings on the crank?

there many engines that share the same block in different displacement variations. Take the 400sbc dor example. It has plenty of metal on the cam's bearing surface to have some metal removed from it and have the roller bearings installed. Actually, that is true for most pushrod type engines. It wouldn't take much more material to be removed from the block to make the roller bearings fit. It's not like one would need 1/4" thick bearings. Driveshaft u-joint do rather well with those little needle bearings. Now those take a beating! As for the crankshaft bearings, I do actually have a couple of routes to take as far as being able to rollerize the journals. But going back to the 400sbc, it is common knowledge the 350/327 cranks have smaller journals which would make it very apt for one of these mods without great merL removal.

 

[Dabigguy]

Using a needle bearing from a drive shaft for an example, the bearings are apx. 1/8" thick and the race would have to be 1/8" which equates to 1/4" per side of the cam/crank for a total material removed of 1/2" or more. Take a 1/4" out of a bearing cap and add more horsepower and it won't last long.

If there was that much horsepower to be made by adding roller bearings to our engines, the automakers would have already done it to the SBC....it's been around since the mid 50's......that's 55 years to do it and they haven't. Maybe that tells us something.

 

[86GN-862+2]

Automakers take the cheap way out so they can maximize profits. Billet part would allow smaller bearing carriers thus reducing the material needed to be removed from the production blocks. As I posted up top, aftemarket companies would profit from this if they made it available to the regular Joe and not just the racing crowd. It may be an idea open for debate with more reasons for why not to do it or why it can't be done but it is reasonable for certain production blocks as would be the "M" blocks. I don't think Mexico is installing these in their vehicles anymore but the casting molds do exist. That's how we get to pay more for those better castings. I believe Australia and Canada may also done a better job with their engine designs from back then. Pardon the typos but I'm using my phone to post... Just so as not to give the impression I'm completely ignorant lol.